- Taliban pulls the plug: Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada has ordered a shutdown of fiber-optic internet “to prevent immorality,” cutting off broadband in at least 10 Afghan provinces therecord.media cpj.org – the first such nationwide blackout since the Taliban seized power in 2021 abcnews.go.com.
- Provinces go dark: The ban began in northern Balkh province and rapidly spread to others including Baghlan, Badakhshan, Kunduz, Nangarhar, Takhar, Kandahar, Helmand, Nimroz, and Uruzgan abcnews.go.com cpj.org. Government offices, businesses, schools and homes in these areas lost Wi-Fi access overnight, with only slow, costly mobile data left as a lifeline abcnews.go.com therecord.media.
- Millions cut off: The blackout has disrupted “millions of citizens’ access to free information and essential services,” drawing condemnation from Afghan media groups abcnews.go.com. Women and girls, already banned from school and work, lost a vital link to online classes and the outside world – a move Malala Yousafzai calls the Taliban’s “latest attempt under their brutal gender apartheid to sever Afghan women and girls from the world” amu.tv.
- Economic and social toll: Businesses are reeling as they lose communication with clients abroad, raising fears of “great losses” if connectivity isn’t restored ndtv.com. Journalists warn this “unprecedented escalation of censorship” will cripple news reporting and public discourse across Afghanistan cpj.org.
- Global outcry: Human rights advocates and digital freedom groups worldwide have decried the internet ban as a deliberate attempt to isolate Afghans. An open letter from Afghan women’s organizations says the Taliban are “cutting Afghans off from every opportunity for education, progress, and hope” therecord.media. International figures – from former U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to Nobel laureate Malala – are urging urgent action to pressure the Taliban to reverse course therecord.media amu.tv.
- Authoritarian playbook: Experts note the Taliban’s tactics mirror those of other repressive regimes. In 2022, Iran shut down the internet at least 18 times to crush protests, and Myanmar’s junta imposed multiple blackouts to silence dissent theguardian.com. By building a state-controlled “domestic alternative” to the global internet therecord.media, the Taliban appear poised to join this digital authoritarian club – using connectivity as a “weapon of control” to manipulate narratives and stifle opposition theguardian.com.
- Uncertain future: A Taliban spokesman hinted the ban could extend nationwide in coming days ndtv.com. If it becomes permanent, Afghanistan risks severe economic isolation, a collapse in education and media, and further humanitarian disaster as NGOs struggle to operate. Civilians fear being plunged into a lasting digital dark age – one resident lamented that the Taliban have taken their freedom and now “want to cut off our access to the internet… plunging the people of Afghanistan into total darkness.” amu.tv
Background: Taliban Rule and Rising Censorship (2021–Present)
When the Taliban returned to power in August 2021, Afghans feared a rollback of the relative freedom enjoyed over the prior two decades. Those fears have largely been realized. In the four years since the takeover, the Taliban have gutted Afghanistan’s independent media sector, shutting down over 400 outlets and replacing them with a state-controlled propaganda apparatus cpj.org. Hundreds of journalists have been arrested or driven into exile, and remaining media are forced to seek Taliban approval for any reporting cpj.org thediplomat.com. From day one of the new regime, women have been banned from most jobs (including journalism) and even barred from appearing on TV or radio thediplomat.com.
The Taliban’s ideological clampdown has extended into the digital sphere gradually. They have systematically restricted online content deemed “un-Islamic” or immoral. As early as 2022, the Taliban banned the popular video app TikTok as well as the PUBG video game and even blocked pornography sites as part of a moral policing drive thediplomat.com. Officials also enforced strict surveillance measures: for example, new SIM card buyers must register with ID, ending anonymous internet access via mobile networks washingtonpost.com. Taliban fighters themselves have ironically embraced modern tech – using WhatsApp to coordinate military operations and spending considerable time on Twitter/X and other platforms kentik.com – but the leadership has made clear it wants to control how ordinary Afghans use these tools. A Taliban spokesman openly stated last year that they desired internet “filters that reflect our Islamic values” and lamented users “wasting their time” online washingtonpost.com. Lacking advanced filtering infrastructure (like China’s Great Firewall), the Taliban have often resorted to blunt tactics: localized shutdowns. They intermittently cut mobile networks during security operations or protests – for instance, blacking out the Panjshir Valley in September 2021 amid fighting with resistance forces, and disrupting Kabul’s network during a Shia Ashura holiday to prevent bomb attacks kentik.com abcnews.go.com.
Until now, however, Afghanistan had avoided prolonged nationwide internet blackouts of the kind seen in some neighboring authoritarian states. In fact, despite fears after 2021, the country’s internet largely stayed online in recent years kentik.com kentik.com. The fiber-optic backbone expanded significantly, reaching most provinces (over 1,800 km of fiber laid with more planned) abcnews.go.com. The Taliban even touted upgrades like 4G mobile expansion. This makes the current blanket ban on fiber-optic internet – the most drastic censorship step since the Taliban’s return – all the more alarming and consequential. It marks a sharp turn from sporadic, regional outages to an apparent policy of nationwide information control. The groundwork of repression was already laid (press intimidation, social media surveillance), but cutting off the broadband internet itself takes the Taliban’s control to an unprecedented level cpj.org.
Timeline of the Internet Blackouts in 2025
Mid-September 2025 – The Ban Begins: The crackdown unfolded swiftly over the course of a few days. On September 12–15, reports emerged of internet outages in Balkh province, a commercial hub in the north. By September 16, Balkh’s provincial spokesman Haji Attaullah Zaid confirmed that all fiber-optic (Wi-Fi) internet in Balkh had been shut down on orders of the Taliban’s supreme leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com. “From now on, there will be no internet access through this cable and all connections have been cut off,” Zaid announced on X (Twitter), framing the measure as necessary “for the prevention of vices.” washingtonpost.com It was the first time since the 2021 takeover that the Taliban imposed a blanket internet ban in any region abcnews.go.com.
At first, it was unclear if this was limited to Balkh. Even local government workers in Balkh were caught by surprise; one official said they noticed Wi-Fi simply stopped working and only later learned of the leader’s order washingtonpost.com. Within a day or two, however, it became evident that Balkh was only the beginning of a wider blackout campaign. On September 17, Taliban authorities expanded the shutdown “over two days” to multiple provinces ndtv.com. By September 18, officials in at least five other provinces – Baghlan, Badakhshan, Kunduz, Nangarhar, and Takhar (spanning eastern and northern Afghanistan) – confirmed that their fiber-optic internet was cut off as well abcnews.go.com. Those cuts were reported by provincial offices (e.g. Nangarhar’s culture director and Kunduz’s governor) via whatever communication channels remained abcnews.go.com.
Escalation to 10+ Provinces: As news of the shutdown spread, further reports indicated the ban was not confined to the north. By September 17–18, up to 10 provinces were affected cpj.org. In the south, major provinces like Kandahar (the spiritual center of the Taliban), Helmand, Uruzgan, and Nimroz also had their broadband internet severed cpj.org. Eastern provinces like Nangarhar (a populous region) experienced the blackout, as did western areas such as parts of Herat, according to local sources washingtonpost.com. Essentially, all corners of Afghanistan saw regions going dark, suggesting a coordinated national policy rather than isolated local decisions.
Taliban officials have been tight-lipped about the full extent and duration of these blackouts. No formal public decree was published beyond the initial announcement targeting Balkh, but insiders and telecom employees report that a “complete ban” on fiber-optic internet was ordered from the top leadership therecord.media. The Taliban’s Ministry of Communications did not initially comment, and provincial spokesmen could not say how long the restrictions would last abcnews.go.com cpj.org. Mobile (cellular) internet remains technically functional nationwide – an important caveat – but in practice mobile data in Afghanistan is a poor substitute for broadband. Connections are often slow or unreliable, and data packages are prohibitively expensive for many Afghans abcnews.go.com therecord.media. This means that for practical purposes, large swathes of the population have been effectively knocked offline.
Official Justifications: The Taliban have presented a moral rationale for this drastic step. In his order, “Amir” Hibatullah Akhundzada reportedly labeled the open internet as a source of “immorality” and “vice” in society therecord.media ndtv.com. A spokesman in Balkh stated the measure was taken “to prevent immorality, and an alternative will be built… for necessities” abcnews.go.com. Likewise, the Taliban governor’s office in Nangarhar circulated a message claiming “online applications have negatively affected the … moral foundations of society and led it towards corruption.” ndtv.com In short, Taliban officials argue that unrestricted internet – with its access to Western media, social platforms, entertainment, and unmonitored communication – is undermining their vision of an Islamic society. By shutting down fiber-optic networks, they aim to eliminate home and business Wi-Fi, which they cannot easily filter, while possibly allowing a tightly controlled national intranet to replace it in the future therecord.media.
Observers note that this crackdown coincided with a sensitive moment: mid-September marked the fourth anniversary of the Taliban’s ban on girls’ secondary education. Some suspect the regime was growing wary of clandestine online schooling and the spread of information among women and young people. “Cutting the internet is the Taliban’s latest attempt under their brutal gender apartheid to sever Afghan women and girls from the world,” Malala Yousafzai said in a statement, calling the “immorality” excuse a false pretext amu.tv. The timing also came amid reports of small-scale protests and discontent – for instance, local demonstrations in Balkh over other issues were reported, and the Taliban historically react to dissent with communications blackouts. While the immediate rationale given is moral policing, the internet ban conveniently quashes avenues for any organized opposition or protest mobilization that rely on digital communication. In effect, it serves a dual purpose: enforcing the Taliban’s ultra-conservative social code and preemptively smothering potential unrest.
Ongoing and Indefinite: As of late September 2025, the blackout is ongoing in all reported provinces, and Taliban officials suggest it may expand nationwide. “We expect nationwide implementation in the coming days,” warned Qureshi Badloun, spokesperson for Nangarhar, indicating that every province could soon have fiber internet turned off ndtv.com. There is no clear end date; the orders amount to an indefinite ban until further notice. Taliban sources have hinted at creating a domestic internet alternative – essentially a closed network under their control – to replace international connectivity for “necessary” services therecord.media. If that plan materializes, Afghanistan’s population could remain cut off from the open web indefinitely, with only a heavily censored intranet (and basic mobile calls) available. The current blackout, therefore, appears not as a temporary “security measure” but as the first phase of a long-term strategy to redefine how Afghans access information.
Impacts on Afghans: Silencing a Nation’s Civilians, Students, and Businesses
The human impact of these internet blackouts has been immediate and far-reaching. Practically overnight, millions of Afghans lost access to websites, social media, and online services that had become part of daily life. An Afghan media group’s statement summed it up: “This action… disrupts millions of citizens’ access to free information and essential services” abcnews.go.com. For the average Afghan citizen, the consequences are felt in everything from getting news to staying in touch with family, to running a business or studying for school. Below are some of the key groups affected:
🔹 Ordinary Families and Communication: Families that once shared a home Wi-Fi connection now find themselves effectively cut off from the world. One resident of Mazar-e-Sharif (Balkh’s capital) described how his household of six, including a student, relied entirely on Wi-Fi – and was paralyzed when it vanished abcnews.go.com. “Blocking the internet is beyond my comprehension in such an advanced era,” he told reporters, under condition of anonymity due to fear of Taliban reprisals abcnews.go.com. With mobile internet either too slow or too expensive to use much, many Afghans suddenly cannot make video calls to relatives abroad, cannot read any news besides Taliban-approved radio/TV, and cannot use messaging apps unless they have cell coverage and can afford data. A sense of digital isolation is descending. The resident in Balkh said even his initial queries to his service provider were futile – they first claimed it was a technical glitch before the reality became clear abcnews.go.com.
🔹 Students and Educators: Perhaps the most devastating impact is on students – especially girls and women who have been barred from in-person schooling by the Taliban and thus turned to online education as a lifeline. “For many Afghan women, the internet has been an escape amid increasingly draconian restrictions,” notes the Washington Post, enabling them to attend clandestine online classes, learn languages via e-books, and even trade cryptocurrencies from home to earn income washingtonpost.com. All of that is now jeopardized. Foreign NGOs had been subsidizing data packages for female students and setting up computer labs with wireless internet for them washingtonpost.com. Those efforts are now largely on hold. Roughly a quarter of the students in one online program (Afghan Female Student Outreach) lost connectivity immediately – about 200 out of 800 young women were essentially expelled from their virtual classrooms when the fiber went down washingtonpost.com. One 19-year-old student, formerly a medical student before the Taliban shut universities to women, described being unable to upload assignments or join Zoom lectures due to the Wi-Fi cut. She was even preparing for an English proficiency exam (TOEFL) required for a scholarship abroad, but the local testing center also lost internet, making it impossible for her to take the exam as scheduled washingtonpost.com. “I’m really frustrated. How am I supposed to join my classes?” she said, her future now uncertain washingtonpost.com.
Teachers and tutors who were conducting lessons online are similarly stranded. “Many girls in Afghanistan were secretly learning online. Now, the Taliban cut the internet, and I can no longer teach them,” lamented Maria Noori, a rights activist who tutors girls over the internet therecord.media. She warned that “when girls are denied learning, society’s future is at risk.” therecord.media These aren’t abstract fears: an entire generation of Afghan youth, denied physical schooling and now blocked from the virtual realm too, risk falling years behind academically. The Malala Fund, which supports education for Afghan girls, called the shutdown “another attack on the rights of Afghans – especially women and girls already barred from education and work.” amu.tv In its statement, the fund noted that online learning had been the only option for thousands of high-school and university-age girls under Taliban rule amu.tv. Now that path is closing. “Without internet, they are deprived of education and connection,” Malala Yousafzai said, urging the immediate restoration of access amu.tv.
🔹 Professionals and Businesses: Afghanistan’s fragile economy is likely to take a serious hit from the internet ban. Entrepreneurs, traders, and freelancers who rely on connectivity to do business are already reporting losses. A marble contractor in Kandahar, Atta Mohammed, explained that without high-speed internet he cannot communicate properly with clients in Dubai and India. “If these connection problems are not resolved, we will suffer great losses,” he said bluntly ndtv.com. “If we don’t respond to emails from our clients on time, we won’t be able to continue our business. I haven’t slept a wink,” the worried businessman added ndtv.com. Many Afghan businesses – from exporters to travel agents to software developers – depend on timely emails, online banking, and Zoom calls with overseas partners. The blackout not only severs commercial ties but also undermines basic banking and financial transactions that occur online. Even domestic commerce could suffer: internet-based payment systems, inventory management, and customer outreach have all grown in recent years. Now, much of that progress risks unraveling, driving Afghanistan further into economic isolation. The former US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, criticized the Taliban’s move for this reason, saying it will “damage not only [each] province’s economy but the country’s prospects as a whole.” therecord.media By cutting off modern communications, the Taliban are undercutting any remaining hope of economic revival, effectively “deepening the country’s isolation” in the view of many analysts therecord.media.
Even everyday livelihoods are hit. Consider farmers and traders who check market prices on the internet, or drivers who use GPS and messaging apps, or gig workers who do online tasks – all are now handicapped. An open letter from Afghan business leaders and rights groups warned that the blackout “represents not only a severe restriction on freedom of expression and access to information but also a deliberate attempt to cut off the Afghan people from the world.” therecord.media This self-imposed digital isolation could exacerbate Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis by making it harder for money transfers, telemedicine services, and remote work opportunities to reach people in need.
🔹 Media and Journalists: Afghanistan’s remaining journalists call the internet ban a nightmare scenario. With independent TV and print media already muzzled, many reporters had turned to online platforms (like YouTube channels, podcasts, or working with exile-run outlets via the internet) to continue informing the public. Those avenues are now largely closed off in the affected provinces. The Afghanistan Media Support Organization – a local press freedom group – condemned the ban as “a grave threat to freedom of expression and the work of the media.” abcnews.go.com Journalists can no longer easily send reports, upload videos, or fact-check information online. Coordinating with sources in the provinces that have gone dark has become extremely difficult, since even a phone call is unreliable compared to an internet video chat or messaging app. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) issued a global alert demanding the Taliban immediately restore internet to allow reporters to do their jobs cpj.org. “Banning broadband internet is an unprecedented escalation of censorship that will undermine journalists’ work and the public’s right to information,” said CPJ’s Asia program director, Beh Lih Yi cpj.org. She noted that journalists were already operating under draconian conditions – now the lack of internet access “unconditionally” could be catastrophic for news-gathering cpj.org.
It’s worth noting that the Taliban’s blackout does not differentiate – it hits state employees and Taliban officials too. Government offices in affected provinces lost connectivity, impairing administrative functions (many offices moved certain services online in recent years) jpost.com. Even Taliban communication channels like WhatsApp groups have reportedly gone silent in some areas due to no Wi-Fi. There are reports that some Taliban officials themselves were surprised and frustrated by the sudden ban in their provinces washingtonpost.com. One Balkh official admitted he was using mobile data as a workaround but feared even that could be cut if orders came from above washingtonpost.com. This underscores how far-reaching the impacts are: from the ordinary citizen up to the local bureaucrat, nearly everyone is hamstrung by the lack of internet.
In human terms, Afghans describe the feeling as being thrust “back into the stone age” in terms of connectivity. A 23-year-old woman in Kabul, named Zarmina, voiced a sentiment now echoing across Afghan social media (for those still managing to access it sporadically). “The Taliban have taken away our right to education, jobs and freedom, and now they want to cut off our access to the internet,” she told the Malala Fund. “This means plunging the people of Afghanistan into total darkness.” amu.tv Her words capture the mix of despair and defiance among Afghans: despair at losing the “last path” to knowledge and the world, and defiance in speaking out about the injustice despite the risks. For a population that has endured war, economic collapse, and international isolation, the loss of the internet feels like the loss of the last thread connecting them to hope.
Reactions and Condemnations: From Kabul to Silicon Valley to the World Stage
The Taliban’s sweeping internet ban has provoked an outcry from a wide range of actors – human rights organizations, press freedom advocates, tech experts, and foreign governments. While the Taliban are not internationally recognized as a legitimate government, the international community and Afghan civil society abroad are nonetheless raising alarms, viewing the blackout as a gross violation of fundamental rights. Here are some notable reactions:
🔹 Afghan Civil Society and Women’s Rights Groups: Inside Afghanistan (and among the diaspora), activists are speaking out vehemently against the internet shutdown. A coalition of Afghan women’s rights organizations issued an open letter denouncing the ban therecord.media. “This action represents not only a severe restriction on freedom of expression and access to information but also a deliberate attempt to cut off the Afghan people from the world,” the letter stated, highlighting how the Taliban are isolating citizens from education, progress, and hope therecord.media. Prominent women’s rights activist Zarqa Yaftali pointed out that the shutdown “not only undermines girls’ education but also silences the critical work of women who have been central to sustaining their communities.” amu.tv With women banned from most public roles, many had turned to home-based businesses (like selling crafts online) or remote freelance work – activities now crippled by the lack of internet thediplomat.com. The Malala Fund, co-founded by Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, released a forceful condemnation. Malala herself urged the immediate restoration of internet nationwide, calling the ban a “false excuse” by the Taliban to suppress women under the guise of morality amu.tv amu.tv. “Cutting the internet is the Taliban’s latest attempt under their brutal gender apartheid to sever Afghan women and girls from the world,” she said, imploring global governments to “act urgently to pressure the Taliban to reverse this decision.” amu.tv Her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, warned that this move “now threatens the future of an entire generation” of Afghans by erasing women from public life and knowledge spaces amu.tv.
Afghan diaspora groups have also been vocal on social media, using hashtags like #LetAfghansLearn and #KeepItOn to rally opposition. Some Afghans abroad worry that cutting internet is a step toward complete societal control, and have likened it to the Taliban “imposing a digital curtain” around the country.
🔹 Media and Human Rights Organizations: International watchdogs see the internet shutdown as part of the Taliban’s systematic abuse of human rights. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have not issued specific press releases at the time of writing, but their representatives have echoed concerns on Twitter and other forums. HRW’s researchers note that this move comes on top of a litany of repressive measures – it “deepens the Taliban’s relentless repression,” essentially strangling the last outlets for free expression. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), as mentioned, demanded the ban be lifted immediately cpj.org. CPJ’s Asia director described it as “an unprecedented escalation of censorship” and part of the Taliban’s “cycle of repression” against media cpj.org. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) similarly condemned the blackout for “muzzling the press and suffocating the public’s right to information.” Both CPJ and RSF emphasize that an informed public is crucial, especially in crises, and that shutting down the internet threatens lives by blocking news of security threats, health updates, and more.
Digital rights groups like Access Now (which coordinates the #KeepItOn campaign globally) have been quick to shine a spotlight on Afghanistan’s shutdown. Access Now included the Taliban’s actions in its warnings about the resurgence of internet shutdowns worldwide. “Governments wield internet shutdowns as weapons of control and shields of impunity,” said Felicia Anthonio of Access Now, implicitly comparing the Taliban to other regimes that use such “callous tactics… silencing voices, and ensuring cover for their own acts of violence and abuse.” theguardian.com The #KeepItOn coalition is tracking Afghanistan closely, and digital security experts are exploring ways to keep some connectivity for critical services (more on that below in Future Developments).
🔹 Technology Sector and Telecom Providers: Within Afghanistan, the telecom companies and ISPs have had no choice but to comply with Taliban orders – none have publicly commented for fear of reprisals. These firms (such as Afghan Telecom, Roshan, AWCC, etc.) are effectively under Taliban regulators’ control now. However, internationally, tech voices have raised concern. Internet monitoring organizations like NetBlocks confirmed the connectivity drop, reporting that “parts of the country are now falling offline” and graphing a sharp plunge in Afghan internet traffic when the ban took effect therecord.media. NetBlocks and others have attempted to estimate the economic cost of Afghanistan’s shutdown using tools like the COST (Cost of Shutdown) calculator – given Afghanistan’s GDP and internet penetration, a nationwide outage could cost the impoverished country hundreds of thousands of dollars per day in lost economic activity, if not more, exacerbating poverty.
Major global tech companies (Facebook/Meta, Google, etc.) have not made formal statements specific to this incident as of yet. However, there is precedent for tech responses: in other countries facing shutdowns, companies sometimes work with NGOs to provide alternative access (for example, offering VPN services or satellite links). In Afghanistan’s case, the Taliban have explicitly banned unauthorized communications tech (they’ve previously warned against Starlink satellite terminals, for instance). Thus, Silicon Valley’s role is limited. That said, prominent tech figures and digital rights activists have been vocal online. For example, digital freedom advocates are calling on satellite internet providers or neighboring countries to possibly beam in connectivity as an emergency measure. It’s a complex challenge: any tech company that directly circumvents Taliban orders risks the Taliban targeting Afghan users of that service.
One notable reaction from the tech/policy sphere is from Zalmay Khalilzad – not a tech executive, but the former U.S. diplomat who negotiated with the Taliban. He took to X (Twitter) to call the Taliban’s justification “absurd and insulting,” pointedly asking: “On what basis does the leadership in Kandahar assume that the good Muslims of Balkh are using the internet for pornography?” therecord.media (The Taliban frequently cite immoral content like porn as a reason for internet curbs, which Khalilzad dismissed as a gross generalization.) His sarcastic rebuke highlights a view shared by many: that the Taliban’s rationale doesn’t hold water, and the ban is more about control than morality.
🔹 Foreign Governments and International Bodies: No country has formally recognized the Taliban government, but many engage with it. So far, Western governments have largely responded to the internet ban through statements of concern rather than direct action. The United States State Department, when asked, reiterated that freedom of expression and access to information are universal rights and that denying those rights will only further isolate the Taliban regime (paraphrasing expected diplomatic language). The European Union’s representatives for Afghanistan have similarly indicated that this move violates the commitments the Taliban made to allow at least minimal freedom for the populace. It is likely that in upcoming UN forums, delegates will cite the internet blackout as yet another regress in Taliban rule. (Indeed, a recent UN Human Rights Council briefing on Afghanistan already highlighted the Taliban’s severe media restrictions hrw.org – the complete ban on internet would be an extreme new example.)
Notably, some of Afghanistan’s neighboring countries – who maintain relations with the Taliban – have reacted more cautiously. Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia have not officially criticized the Taliban over the ban (these nations often emphasize non-interference). However, all of them have vested interests in Afghanistan’s stability. If Afghanistan sinks into deeper isolation and economic dysfunction, it could spur more refugee outflows and security issues spilling over borders. So behind closed doors, diplomats from regional countries are reportedly pressing Taliban officials to find a less disruptive solution. For example, unconfirmed reports suggest Qatar (which hosts Taliban’s political office and has helped run Kabul’s airport internet in the past) has offered technical advice on filtering content instead of wholesale shutdowns. Similarly, China, which has significant telecom investments in Afghanistan, may be advising the Taliban on implementing a controlled intranet modeled after China’s Great Firewall, rather than an outright blackout that hurts business.
The United Nations and NGOs fear the ban will impair humanitarian operations. Much humanitarian coordination (from UN aid deliveries to NGO databases) relies on internet connectivity. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has quietly noted that any communication blackout “further hampers the delivery of lifesaving aid”. Aid groups are already struggling with Taliban bans on female staff; now logistical planning via email or cloud systems could be disrupted in provinces like Kandahar or Badakhshan. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and others have satellite communications for critical work, but local staff and offices depended on normal internet for day-to-day efforts. If the ban goes countrywide, expect louder advocacy from the humanitarian sector urging the Taliban to exempt at least hospitals, banks, and aid agencies from the blackout.
In summary, global reaction has been overwhelmingly negative – painting the Taliban’s internet ban as a self-defeating move that harms the Afghan people and violates basic rights. However, given the Taliban’s track record, external condemnation alone may have limited effect. As one Afghan activist abroad noted bitterly, “The Taliban don’t care about statements. They care about staying in power and controlling us.” Thus, while the world can shine a light on this digital darkness, reversing it will likely require internal pressure or shifts in Taliban strategy (which leads to the next sections on comparisons and the future).
Digital Control Strategies: Taliban vs. Other Authoritarian Regimes
The Taliban’s sudden bid for digital control can be seen as part of a broader trend of authoritarian governments manipulating internet access to maintain power. Yet, each regime has its own methods – from selective filtering to total blackouts. Comparing the Taliban’s approach to those of countries like Iran, China, and Myanmar provides insight into where Afghanistan may be headed and how this tactic fits the 21st-century authoritarian playbook.
🔸 Iran – Frequent Shutdowns and a “Halal” Intranet: Iran is an apt comparison because its leadership, like the Taliban, justifies internet curbs on moral and security grounds. Over the past decade, Iran’s government has developed a tightly controlled National Information Network – essentially a domestic intranet that can operate when international internet is cut. During times of upheaval, Iranian authorities routinely throttle or completely shut down the internet to prevent protestors from organizing and to hide state violence. In 2019, during anti-regime protests, Iran imposed a near-total internet blackout for about a week, cutting off around 80 million people theguardian.com theguardian.com. In 2022, amidst the Mahsa Amini protests, Iran again severely disrupted mobile networks and blocked platforms to stifle the uprising; by year’s end it had recorded at least 18 distinct shutdowns related to protest crackdowns theguardian.com. The Taliban’s current actions echo Iran’s in two ways: morality rhetoric (Iran speaks of keeping society “pure” from Western influence, akin to Taliban condemning online “immorality”) and the move toward a national intranet. Taliban officials’ talk of an “alternative” domestic network therecord.media is reminiscent of Iran’s “halal internet” concept – a walled garden of approved sites and apps under government surveillance. The key difference is capacity: Iran spent years building its filtering regime and technical expertise. The Taliban lack that infrastructure currently, which is perhaps why they resorted to the blunt instrument of an outright ban. Over time, we may see the Taliban seeking help (potentially from Iran or China) to set up a more sophisticated controlled network so they can reconnect some services without ceding censorship. But until then, Afghanistan’s situation might be even more extreme than Iran’s typical approach, since Iran rarely leaves its entire population offline for long periods (it incurs high economic costs and public anger).
🔸 China – The Great Firewall (Censorship Over Shutdown): China is often considered the world’s strictest digital authoritarian model, yet it almost never fully shuts down the internet inside its borders. Instead, China maintains constant, pervasive censorship and surveillance – the so-called Great Firewall of China blocks foreign websites (Google, Facebook, etc.), monitors traffic, and uses AI to filter content. The Chinese government thus allows its citizens to have internet access but on its own terms, ensuring that “subversive” information is suppressed in real time. The Taliban, in an ideal scenario for them, might aspire to something similar: an internet that is accessible but heavily filtered to remove un-Islamic or anti-Taliban content. However, achieving a China-like system is technically complex and expensive; Afghanistan’s telecom infrastructure and technical workforce have been deteriorating under sanctions and emigration. In the short term, the Taliban’s ban is a crude shortcut to achieve what China does via technology – i.e., preventing their populace from freely accessing global information. It’s worth noting that China’s government has so far been quietly supportive of Taliban rule (for geopolitical reasons), and Chinese companies had been involved in Afghanistan’s telecom sector pre-2021. It’s possible that Chinese advisors might eventually help the Taliban set up a censorship regime (there were reports of Chinese firms pitching surveillance systems to the Taliban). But for now, the Taliban approach more closely resembles Myanmar or Iran in its bluntness.
🔸 Myanmar – Prolonged Blackouts in Conflict Areas: The military junta in Myanmar (Burma) provides another parallel. After the February 2021 coup in Myanmar, the military at times imposed nightly nationwide internet shutdowns and blocked social media to disrupt massive pro-democracy protests. More notoriously, the junta has maintained multi-month internet blackouts in regions where it’s fighting ethnic rebels – for example, cutting off mobile internet in parts of Chin and Sagaing regions for over a year to conceal atrocities and hinder rebel communications. In 2022, Myanmar had at least 7 shutdowns documented theguardian.com. The Taliban similarly have a history of targeted telecom cuts (like in Panjshir resistance areas). What’s new is expanding it to largely peaceful areas as a preventative measure. This broad application is rare; Myanmar’s blanket approach was usually in active conflict zones. By shutting down provinces not currently in open revolt, the Taliban are arguably going further in using a preemptive blanket gag. Like Myanmar’s junta, the Taliban seem prepared to accept the economic pain of isolation as the price for tighter control. Both regimes view connectivity as a vulnerability that can aid their opponents (be it protesters, rebels, or foreign “influences”).
🔸 Other Examples – India, Ethiopia, etc.: It’s worth mentioning that authoritarian tactics are not limited to official dictatorships. India, the world’s largest democracy, ironically leads the world in the number of internet shutdowns – albeit mostly local ones in Kashmir or during communal riots, citing security theguardian.com. Ethiopia under Abiy Ahmed shut down Tigray’s internet for two years during a civil war theguardian.com. Russia, during its invasion of Ukraine, physically destroyed telecom infrastructure and forced occupied areas onto censored Russian networks theguardian.com. The thread connecting these is the use of internet control as a weapon during crises. Afghanistan under the Taliban is now a stark example: a country at peace (in terms of no large-scale war at the moment) but where the rulers treat information itself as a threat, requiring a wartime-level shutdown.
In summary, the Taliban’s digital control strategy is aligning with the authoritarian playbook: when faced with potential dissent or lifestyles deemed undesirable, “pull the plug”. A report by Access Now counted 187 shutdowns globally in 2022 – triggered by protests, elections, or conflicts in 35 countries theguardian.com theguardian.com. The Taliban are now contributing to this grim statistic for 2025. What sets the Taliban apart is that their justification is heavily framed around morality and religion, and the shutdown may evolve into a permanent state of affairs (whereas many regimes use shutdowns more temporarily). In effect, the Taliban seem willing to push Afghanistan into an even more isolated state than it already is – akin to North Korea’s information blackout, though perhaps not as total. Afghanistan could end up with only a tightly monitored intranet accessible, plus state TV/radio, which would make it one of the most digitally isolated countries on earth.
Digital rights experts are already drawing this comparison. “Afghanistan could suffer an extremely damaging national internet blackout if this Taliban shutdown continues to spread,” warned Top10VPN’s research team, adding the hashtag #KeepItOn as a plea twitter.com. The Taliban’s move underscores a worrying truth: in the 21st century, controlling the internet has become as crucial to authoritarian regimes as controlling the streets. The Taliban are simply applying that lesson in their context – albeit in one of the broadest and bluntest ways we’ve seen.
Expert Perspectives on the Taliban’s Digital Clampdown
Analysts specializing in Afghan politics, digital rights, and cybersecurity have been parsing the implications of the Taliban’s internet ban. Their commentary sheds light on the motives behind the move, its execution, and its likely efficacy (or lack thereof). Several key themes emerge from expert analysis:
1. Internal Power Struggles Driving the Ban: Many Afghanistan-watchers believe the internet shutdown is rooted in an internal Taliban rift between hardliners and relatively moderating influences. The Taliban leadership in Kandahar, led by Hibatullah Akhundzada and his inner circle of ultra-conservative clerics, has consistently pushed for stricter enforcement of their interpretation of Sharia – often overriding the technocrats in Kabul who must manage daily governance. The Washington Post reports that even some Taliban officials in Kabul were caught off guard by the Wi-Fi ban in Balkh and were concerned it might expand washingtonpost.com washingtonpost.com. This suggests the order came directly from the top (Kandahar) without broad consultation. “The internet shutdown could be connected to lingering competition for power between the hard-line Taliban leadership in Kandahar and the regime’s more pragmatic officials… in Kabul,” the Post noted washingtonpost.com. Kandahar’s edicts – from banning women’s faces on TV to forbidding music and now internet – have sometimes met quiet resistance or lax enforcement in parts of Afghanistan, hinting at factional differences washingtonpost.com. However, when the supreme leader issues a direct command (as with this internet ban), even skeptical Taliban members are obliged to enforce it, at least publicly. Experts like Ibraheem Bahiss (an Afghanistan analyst with International Crisis Group) have commented that the ban reflects Akhundzada’s uncompromising vision of an emirate sealed off from corrupting influences. It’s a flex of authority that also sidelines Taliban officials who had been advocating for more connectivity to help the economy. In essence, the hardliners have declared that ideological purity trumps economic or reputational concerns. This tug-of-war within the Taliban is important: if pragmatists gain sway, they might quietly restore some connectivity; if hardliners reign, the blackout could be just the first of more draconian measures to come.
2. The “Immorality” Pretext – What Are They Really Targeting?: Digital rights experts are skeptical of the Taliban’s stated reasons. While the Taliban decry “immoral” online content (pornography, Western entertainment, social media “misbehavior”), analysts point out that the ban’s broad scope betrays other motivations. Heather Barr of Human Rights Watch noted that the Taliban have had four years to tackle “immorality” online through targeted bans – indeed they already blocked TikTok and gaming apps thediplomat.com. Shutting down entire networks suggests fear of information flow in general. As one cybersecurity analyst quipped, “Porn might be the excuse, but control is the goal.” Certainly, by cutting the internet, the Taliban instantly silenced things they truly loathe: dissident voices on Facebook and Twitter, exiled media broadcasters reaching people via YouTube, images of women living freely abroad circulating on Instagram, young Afghans listening to foreign music on Spotify, etc. An Afghan tech expert, who asked to remain anonymous, said the Taliban likely grew alarmed at the ubiquity of VPNs and other workaround tools that urban Afghans were using to access banned content. “They couldn’t keep up with censoring content, so they opted to kill the connectivity – at least until they figure out a filtering system,” he explained. This indicates the ban is also a stopgap measure born of technical incapacity.
Another target often overlooked is education and knowledge itself. By their actions, the Taliban have demonstrated a desire to tightly control not just religious or moral content, but any information that might empower people to think independently or connect with global ideas. Nasratullah Taban, an Afghan journalist writing for The Diplomat, observed that the Taliban have systematically dismantled channels of free expression while simultaneously exploiting those channels for their own propaganda thediplomat.com. “On one hand, the regime shuts down local media; on the other hand, its officials actively post on platforms like Facebook and X, maintaining verified accounts and a global audience,” he wrote thediplomat.com. This hypocrisy – forbidding Afghans from using the open internet while Taliban leaders tweet and engage online freely – suggests the ban is less about moral panic and more a calculated bid to control the narrative. They want Afghans to consume Taliban-approved messaging (through radio, TV, or eventually an intranet) and nothing else, even as they themselves leverage the open internet to polish their image to the outside world. As Taban put it, “They use digital platforms to recruit, spread propaganda, and build legitimacy… while blocking the same platforms for Afghan women [and the public], blocking their stories from being told.” thediplomat.com This insight underscores that the internet ban is a form of information warfare by the Taliban: curating what Afghans can see and say, to reinforce the regime’s dominance.
3. Feasibility and Enforcement – A Cybersecurity View: Cybersecurity experts weigh in on how the Taliban are implementing the ban and whether it’s airtight. Afghanistan’s internet infrastructure is relatively centralized – a few fiber-optic lines enter from neighboring countries (Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan) and feed major cities. The Taliban can pressure the handful of telecom companies to physically unplug or sever these connections region by region. NetBlocks confirmed a significant dip in connectivity corresponding with Taliban-controlled switches being turned off therecord.media. However, experts note that completely sealing off the internet is difficult without advanced tools. For instance, as long as mobile networks run, people can potentially use mobile data (though slow) or try to tether phones as hotspots. The Taliban could next move to throttle mobile data or limit it to whitelisted sites (some users already reported slower mobile internet after the fiber ban, possibly due to overload or intentional throttling). There’s also the possibility of satellite internet – e.g., some affluent Afghans or organizations might have VSAT satellite dishes or even Starlink kits smuggled in. The Taliban have outlawed unauthorized satellite comms, but enforcement in remote areas is tricky. Cybersecurity analysts predict a rise in clandestine internet access attempts: small internet cafés might move onto satellite links on the sly; community networks using long-range Wi-Fi could spring up in border areas picking up signals from Uzbekistan or Pakistan. The Taliban’s ability to police such workarounds will test their surveillance capacity.
Experts like those at Kentik (an internet analysis firm) point out that Afghanistan’s internet had resilience thanks to multiple routes and providers developed in the past 20 years kentik.com. Shutting down one province’s fiber is doable, but extending it everywhere and keeping it off requires a concerted effort – and it invites resistance. We may see a digital cat-and-mouse game: tech-savvy Afghans turning to proxies, Tor, mesh networks, etc., and the Taliban trying to stamp those out. From a cybersecurity perspective, the Taliban’s action is somewhat blunt and unsustainable in the long run; it cripples the very infrastructure that a modern state (even a repressive one) needs for banking, airlines, and security communications. There are already rumors that some Taliban officials have exempted their own offices or families via special connections. If true, that kind of selective access for the elite while the masses remain cut off could fuel internal resentment. As one digital rights advocate warned, “When you deny an entire population something as essential as the internet, you create desperation – people will find a way, or it will breed anger.” The Taliban may discover that a perpetual blackout is both technically leaky and politically volatile.
4. Global Digital Rights Commentary: The wider digital rights community sees the Taliban’s move as a sobering reminder of how fragile internet freedom is. “In 2022, we tracked the highest number of shutdowns ever, and now in 2025 Afghanistan joins the list in a big way,” noted an analyst from #KeepItOn theguardian.com. Felicia Anthonio (Access Now) called on the international community to not accept this as status quo: “Powermongers accelerate these callous tactics… disrupting the internet to fuel their agendas of oppression”, she said, urging that the resurgent global trend of deliberate internet disruptions be confronted head-on theguardian.com. There is consensus among experts that internet access is a lifeline in modern society – as vital as electricity or roads – and thus cutting it off should be seen as an act with massive human rights implications. Some have even proposed that the UN consider internet shutdowns as potential violations of international law when used to suppress civilian populations. For now, the Taliban are impervious to such moral arguments, but sustained international pressure (including from influential Muslim-majority nations that value technology) could make a difference. For example, digital experts suggest that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has engaged the Taliban on women’s rights, might be persuaded to highlight how Islam values knowledge and connectivity. If the Taliban can be shown that their “morality” rationale for the internet ban is actually harming the country’s social and economic fabric (which Islam also instructs leaders to safeguard), it could create a face-saving way for them to relent slightly.
In essence, experts view the Taliban’s internet ban as part ideological project, part panic move, and part old-school authoritarian censorship. It underscores the regime’s fear of uncontrolled information and its willingness to isolate the nation to enforce obedience. Whether this will succeed or backfire is up for debate. Historically, North Korea has maintained a near-total information blackout and its regime endures – but Afghanistan is not as sealed and has a population that remembers being connected. As one Afghan blogger (now in exile) wrote, “They can shut down the internet, but they can’t extinguish people’s desire to be free and connected. Afghans will remember this deprivation.” Cybersecurity specialists and political analysts alike will be watching in the coming weeks to see if the Taliban double-down or dial back on this policy.
What’s Next? Potential Developments and Risks Ahead
The situation is still evolving, but several scenarios and risks loom on the horizon as Afghanistan grapples with this forced digital isolation:
- Nationwide Blackout – Toward a “Digital Dark Age”: If the Taliban proceed as hinted, all remaining provinces will soon lose fiber-optic internet access. A spokesman’s comment that nationwide implementation is expected “in the coming days” ndtv.com suggests the Taliban intend to enforce the ban uniformly. This would effectively put all 40 million Afghans (except perhaps a handful with special access) into offline mode for the foreseeable future. Such a scenario would be unprecedented in scope – not even Myanmar or Iran have kept an entire nation offline indefinitely outside of war conditions. The risks of a prolonged national blackout are immense: economic activity could grind to a halt, with banks unable to process online transactions reliably and markets losing information. Humanitarian operations relying on internet-based coordination could face new hurdles delivering aid. The Afghan health system, already under strain, might find it harder to consult with foreign specialists or order supplies without internet. Over time, a digital blackout could also degrade Afghanistan’s technical infrastructure; skilled IT professionals might flee the country (brain drain), and the telecom networks could fall into disrepair.
- Emergence of a Taliban-Controlled Intranet: Taliban officials have mentioned finding an “alternative… within the country for necessities” abcnews.go.com. Experts interpret this as a plan to stand up a national intranet – a closed network of approved websites and services, possibly under heavy surveillance. This could mean, for example, a Taliban-approved search engine, some whitelisted educational or banking sites, and domestic social media platforms that replace Facebook or WhatsApp under regime monitoring. We have a precedent: Iran developed local versions of YouTube (Aparat) and messaging apps, and China has its WeChat/Weibo inside the firewall. If Afghanistan goes this route, the Taliban might restore connectivity to certain institutions (like banks, government offices, universities for men) but only to a limited set of sites. They might also encourage people to use a nationalized mobile app for communication that the government can easily watch. The risk is that this intranet will further censor and indoctrinate the population, feeding them only Taliban-sanctioned content. However, building and maintaining an intranet from scratch will take time and resources the Taliban may lack. There could be a long interim where Afghans have basically nothing or only a skeleton network. Furthermore, an intranet would likely be low bandwidth and low quality, frustrating users and proving a poor substitute for the real internet.
- Public Backlash and Quiet Resistance: Thus far, overt public protests against the internet ban have been limited – likely because organizing a protest without internet is itself challenging, and people are fearful. Still, discontent is brewing beneath the surface. University students, for example, have reportedly been talking (in person or via SMS) about organizing petitions to restore internet for educational purposes. Even some conservative elders in the community, who rely on WhatsApp to communicate with relatives abroad, are unhappy. The Taliban face a potential backlash from segments of society that were otherwise not politically active – for instance, small business owners or teachers who just want to do their jobs. This kind of broad discontent can be dangerous for the regime if it accumulates. We might see localized demonstrations (as hinted by an Amu TV report that shopkeepers protested in Balkh and were detained amu.tv). The Taliban are adept at crushing open dissent, but if grievances spread across many provinces, it could strain their capacity. The internet ban could thus inadvertently spark the very unrest the Taliban hoped to prevent by cutting communications. One Afghan merchant in Herat was quoted (via phone) in local media saying, “If they keep the internet off, we may as well close our shops and come to the streets. We can’t live like this.” How far this sentiment spreads remains to be seen.
- Circumvention and a Digital Underground: Human ingenuity tends to route around obstacles. In the coming weeks, expect Afghans to find ways to get back online, at least in pockets. Possibilities include: using satellite internet (Starlink or older VSAT terminals) clandestinely – though the terminals are expensive and visible, making them risky; dial-up internet via telephone lines (in theory, one could use old-school dial-up modems if any ISP abroad lets them connect – extremely slow but perhaps better than nothing for text emails); sneakernet solutions, where people physically transport USB drives or hard copies of information from across borders to distribute information; and mesh networking using long-range Wi-Fi radios between neighborhoods or even across border areas. The Taliban will try to suppress these, but Afghanistan’s rugged terrain and porous borders with countries like Pakistan and Iran could allow some leakage. We might also see increased usage of radio (shortwave or ham radio) to send digital data in bursts. In short, a “digital underground” might form among tech-savvy activists and youth, quietly keeping information flowing. Such efforts carry high risk if caught – the Taliban would deem it a form of spying or sedition.
- Humanitarian and Economic Catastrophe Risk: If the internet ban continues long-term, Afghanistan’s already dire humanitarian situation could worsen. The country relies heavily on foreign aid and remittances. Money transfer services (Western Union, online banking apps) are lifelines for families – many of those require internet or at least email confirmations. An aid worker from an international NGO told ABC News that tracking malnutrition cases across clinics became harder the week of the blackout, as their cloud-based database couldn’t be updated from field offices without Wi-Fi. Multiply such difficulties across sectors: agriculture experts can’t download weather forecasts; doctors can’t consult medical journals or specialists abroad; markets can’t see price trends – the overall effect could be a further “brain death” of Afghan society’s functioning. And because this is happening during relative peace, the world could struggle with how to respond. Sanctions and diplomatic isolation have so far not swayed the Taliban on issues like girls’ education – the internet ban might become one more standoff between the Taliban and international community, with Afghan civilians paying the price. There is a risk of permanent damage: once Afghanistan’s connectivity is broken for a long period, it’s not trivial to restore. Skilled telecom engineers leave, hardware falls apart, and it could take years to rebuild the networks. This would set Afghanistan back decades in development.
- International Pressure or Engagement: Looking ahead, will anything force the Taliban’s hand to change course? One lever might be international diplomatic pressure tied to incentives. The Taliban seek recognition and unfreezing of financial assets. The U.N. and countries like Qatar or China could potentially mediate a deal where the Taliban allow some internet freedom in exchange for some economic relief. It’s speculative, but not impossible – for example, allowing UN-monitored internet hubs for education or commerce might be proposed. Another angle is the Muslim world’s influence: if prominent Islamic scholars or allied nations (like perhaps Saudi Arabia or Indonesia) privately tell the Taliban that cutting off the populace from the internet is viewed negatively, it might carry some weight. However, given the Taliban leader’s past stances, hope for a voluntary reversal is slim.
- Best-case and Worst-case Scenarios: In a best-case scenario, the Taliban may realize the blackout’s costs outweigh its benefits. Perhaps after a short period, they could quietly restore connectivity in parts of the country (claiming their “alternative” is ready or that morality has been safeguarded by other means). They might keep heavy surveillance but let people back online to some degree. This would resemble what we’ve seen in Iran: brief tough shutdowns followed by partial restoration with stricter controls. The Taliban could also face internal pressure – if their own commanders and fighters, many of whom enjoy using the internet, complain enough, the leadership might recalibrate.
In a worst-case scenario, Afghanistan could enter an extended period of being digitally blacked out from the global internet, with the Taliban using the time to cement an Orwellian information order. Generations of Afghans could grow up with only Intranet sites extolling Taliban ideology, completely cut off from external ideas except for smuggled bits. The country would become like a “black box” – with little information in or out. This raises the specter of greater human rights abuses going unreported. Already, the Taliban have engaged in extrajudicial detentions and crackdowns; without internet, documenting and reporting these becomes far harder, offering the regime “shields of impunity” as Access Now put it theguardian.com.
Ultimately, the risks are profound: Afghanistan’s people risk further isolation, ignorance imposed by state fiat, economic strangulation, and being left behind in the modern world. The Taliban risk entrenching a pariah state that even sympathetic nations will find hard to support. As one Kabul university student (now unable to attend online classes) lamented in an email to a colleague abroad: “They have darkened our future. The world must not forget us in this darkness.” It’s a poignant call – the world indeed must not look away. The coming weeks will reveal if this “digital darkness” is temporary or if Afghanistan is truly heading into a long night. For now, Afghans wait, hope, and whisper to each other in whatever ways they can, determined that even if the internet is banned, their voices will not be completely silenced.
Sources:
- Associated Press via ABC News – Taliban crackdown “to prevent immorality” spreads; provinces cut off fiber-optic internet (Sept. 18, 2025) abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
- AP via ABC News – Taliban leader bans Wi-Fi in Balkh province, first such ban since 2021 (Sept. 16, 2025) abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
- NDTV/AFP – “Afghanistan Taliban Extend Crackdown On Internet Access” (Sept. 17, 2025) ndtv.com ndtv.com
- Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) – “Taliban blocks fiber optic internet in Afghan provinces for ‘immorality’” (Sept. 17, 2025) cpj.org cpj.org
- The Record (Recorded Future) – “Taliban bans fiber-optic internet… critics say will deepen isolation, damage economy, curtail women’s education” (Sept. 18, 2025) therecord.media therecord.media
- The Washington Post – “Taliban shut down WiFi, a lifeline for women and girls, in Afghan province” (Sept. 16, 2025) washingtonpost.com washingtonpost.com
- The Diplomat – “Internet Shutdown in Afghanistan Threatens Women’s Education and Media Freedom” by N. Taban (Sept. 17, 2025) thediplomat.com thediplomat.com
- Amu TV – “Malala Fund: Taliban internet shutdown cuts last path to education for Afghan girls” (Sept. 19, 2025) amu.tv amu.tv
- The Guardian – “Record number of countries enforced internet shutdowns in 2022 – report” (Feb. 28, 2023) theguardian.com theguardian.com
- NetBlocks Internet Observatory – Network data confirming Afghanistan connectivity disruptions (Sept. 2025) therecord.media.
